WASHINGTON, D.C. — The “Big Three” national drug distributors on Oct. 20 told a federal judicial panel that they support centralization of more than 60 opioid lawsuits filed against them by various cities and counties (In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2804, JPML).

NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 24 affirmed the exclusion of general causation experts in the Mirena multidistrict litigation and a court order terminating the MDL before any trials were held (In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, Mirena MDL Plaintiffs v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Nos. 16-2890 and 16-3012, 2nd Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20875).

In March 2017, Judge Young ordered both sides to appear at three hearings with a proposed settlement framework.

Bard’s IVC filters, including its Recovery, G2, Meridian, and Denali product lines, are the target of 1,851 injury claims. IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation is pending before US District Judge David G. Campbell in MDL 2641 in the District of Arizona.

On March 21, 2017, Judge Campbell appointed the Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead/Liaison Counsel and State/Federal Liaison Counsel:

Ramon R. Lopez, Lopez McHugh, LLP, Newport Beach, CA.

Mark S. O’Connor, Gallagher & Kennedy, PA, Phoenix, AZ.

Failure to Warn

IVC filters are implanted into the inferior vena cava – the body’s largest blood vessel – to intercept blood clots before they can travel to the heart and lungs. The devices are indicated for patients at risk for pulmonary embolism, and who are unable to use standard blood-thinning medications. The filters involved in the C.R. Bard and Cook Medical litigations are retrievable, and are intended to be removed once a patient is no longer at risk for pulmonary embolism.

Plaintiffs pursuing IVC filter lawsuits against C.R. Bard and Cook Medical claim that the companies failed to provide doctors with adequate warnings and instructions for removal. They also claim that the devices are defectively designed, and accuse the two companies of concealing the risks associated with their blood clot filters.

The FDA has issued two safety alerts about using retrievable IVC filters.

The first was released in August 2010, after the devices were linked to hundreds of adverse events, including reports of filters fracturing and migrating to other areas of the body. In other cases, pieces of the filters perforated organs and blood vessels.

The FDA issued a second alert in May 2014 to remind doctors of the importance of IVC filter retrieval. A year earlier, a paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine found only 8.5% of retrievable IVC filters were successfully removed.

“In conclusion, our research suggests that the frequent use of IVC filters for VTE treatment and prophylaxis, combined with a low retrieval rate and inconsistent use of anticoagulant therapy, results in suboptimal outcomes, such as mechanical filter failure and high rates of VTE,” the authors of the report concluded. “More comprehensive longitudinal data would likely identify additional complications.”

HIC CEO, Danny Vadasz says “This is a significant public health problem which has been grossly underestimated — in terms of numbers of women as well as the severity of resultant health problems.”

Problems caused by transvaginal mesh have been grossly under-estimated, according to a new survey by an Australian Health Issue Center.

Of these, a shocking 58% say they have been adversely impacted, citing problems such as chronic incontinence, abdominal pain, and pain during intercourse. Sadly, for a quarter of these women, the impact of the implants has led to a breakdown of their marriages or personal relationships.

Just 38% of the respondents believe they made an informed choice to have the procedure.

Of the women who sought remedial medical help, slightly over 10% reported this made things better while 40% reported it made no difference and 11%, that it made matters worse.

The remaining 39% were told that nothing could be done for them.

In just three weeks, 1,250 women completed the online Facebook survey targeting the thousands of women nationwide who have undergone pelvic mesh implants to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

In the US, there are 80,000 lawsuits against the manufacturers or transvaginal mesh in eight MDLS:

A catastrophic failure

Commenting on the overwhelming response to the survey, HIC CEO, Danny Vadasz, says he has no idea ‘how much of the iceberg has been revealed’ so far but believes there could be considerably more given that HIC is currently averaging over 100 survey responses per day.

“Even if we were to receive no further responses, I think we have already demonstrated that this is a significant public health problem which has been grossly under-estimated — in terms of numbers of women as well as the severity of resultant health problems.

HIC is a not for profit consumer health advocate based in Victoria, Australia, which encourages better health outcomes by encouraging consumers to become involved in their own health care and ensuring the health system is responsive to their needs.

“What we are seeing is a catastrophic failure at all levels of the health system to protect the well-being of thousands of women – the lack of due diligence by the TGA in approving the device given the risks; culpability of manufacturers who despite plenty of evidence of adverse reactions overseas, continue marketing their products; the government which does not have a central register of how many procedures have occurred and how many products have been sold and finally, those surgeons who continue to practise the procedure without informing their patients of the risks and the irreversibility of the implant.

“Clearly a lot of questions need to be asked!”

Vadasz says while transvaginal mesh has been seen by the medical fraternity as having ‘revolutionised’ surgical options for women with stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, the collateral damage for women when it goes wrong, is just too high. “We are calling for the classification of mesh to treat either of the conditions to be upgraded to a higher risk status so the patient consent process reflects the consequences when there are complications.”

Unaware that mesh caused injuries

Despite the number of women coming forward, Vadasz believes that the problem will continue to go underreported given that many women do not associate their symptoms with their mesh implants. On top of this, many have been told by doctors there is no causal relationship.

“This has been borne out by the significant number of survey respondents who told us they were unaware that the pain and problems they had suffered for many years could be linked to their mesh implant. Some have cried at the realization with one woman declaring, ‘Now I know I’m not crazy’.”

Here are some of the more harrowing comments on the HIC Facebook page:

“My specialist told me it was all in my head. He got angry with me and said: “I suggest you stop focussing on the vagina, and get on with your life” in a dismissive and irritated tone. Doctors I have seen since have not been forthcoming on what they can see, it is like they are trying to protect the medical fraternity by not telling me fully what is going on or helping me fine treatment.”

“I was told the mesh cannot be removed. I had complications from the moment I came out of theater. I needed a complete reconstruction but was refused and offered the TVT as part of a study or to put up with consequences of a grossly oversized baby that was a face presentation and a complete episiotomy after he became stuck. I now suffer urge incontinence and a partial vaginal prolapse. I wish I’d never had the TVT done!”

About the survey

The Health Issues Centre is one of several organizations invited to give input into the senate inquiry into the extent and impact of Transvaginal Mesh Implants (TVM) across Australia. Currently there is little information about the number of women who have undertaken the procedure and less about those who have suffered from side-effects. In order to understand the size of the problem and gain insight into the impact on these women, the consumer health advocacy conducted a highly targeted nationwide survey.

Using the center’s Facebook page to create interest and an online survey, the survey targeted 14,000 women nationally. The questions are as follows:

· Have you undergone a transvaginal mesh, tape or sling implant as treatment for urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse?

· Do you continue to have undiagnosed symptoms of chronic abdominal pain or urinary incontinence?

· Do you feel you were fully informed before agreeing to the procedure?

· Did the procedure satisfactorily resolve your health concerns?

· Could you specify any adverse impacts you may have experienced?

· How would you rate this adverse impact – discomforting, severe, debilitating, unendurable, none of these.

· Have you sought medical assistance to rectify the problem?

· Did your doctor/specialist confirm a causal relationship between your symptoms and the mesh implant?

· If you were offered remedial treatment, did it change your condition?

While launched only three weeks ago, 20,000 have engaged with the survey and 1,250 surveys have been completed. Over 14,000 people have viewed the Facebook video.

A total of 1,597 cases are docketed before Chief US District Judge Richard L. Young in the Southern District of Indiana in Indianapolis. The MDL was created on October 15, 2014, and recent settlement talks failed in August 2016.

With the first of three bellwether trials scheduled for October 2, 2017, US Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker ordered the parties to set forth confidential settlement statements, including:

A general statement regarding the status of the case, including the status of discovery and trial preparation.

A candid assessment of the strength and weaknesses of the litigation, with specific references to any evidence that supports this assessment.

A proposed settlement framework.

Three meetings

Plaintiffs and counsel only will appear in person at a July 26 conference, where neither defendants or defense counsel can be present. Three days in advance the plaintiffs must submit their settlement statement.

Defendants and their counsel will have a similar conference on August 4, excluding plaintiffs and their counsel. Three days in advance the defendants must submit their settlement statement. Attendees must have actual authority to negotiate a resolution, without needing to contact others who are not present.

The may be a follow-up settlement conference on August 9 with the plaintiffs to discuss the previous conference with the defendants.

Baker admonished the parties to “work with the Magistrate Judge in good faith to determine whether a settlement can be achieved. Unrealistic assessments, including posturing, will be of no value and should be avoided.”

Rapacious greed

The small, umbrella-like devices are implanted for prevention of pulmonary embolism and they perforate the vena cava, migrate out of position or fracture, sending fragments or metal shards into the heart or lungs.

The cause of the litigation is the rapacious greed of the medical device companies competing to get market share, rolling out one defective product after another for the last 16 years, brushing aside reports of patient deaths and lying to the FDA about it.

Cook Medical IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2570 in US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The defendants are Cook Medical, LLC and Cook Inc., both of Bloomington, IN, and William Cook Europe APS, Bjaeverskov, Denmark. The federal district court has created a short form complaint.

Cordis IVC Filter Litigation is centered in the California state courts, where hundreds of cases are up for consolidation. Cordis Corporation is organized under the laws of Florida, with its principal place of business in Fremont, California.

Bard IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2641 (multi-district litigation docket) in US District Court in Arizona. A total of 1,584 cases are docketed there.

There is no MDL for Boston Scientific Corp IVC Filter Litigation. “We believe it is possible that more cases will be filed and a motion for consolidation and transfer may be formed in an effort to form an MDL,” says Mass Tort Consultant John Ray.

Hill v. Cook Medical, Inc., 1:14- cv-6016-RLY-TAB. In this case, the Celect filter was implanted before Ms. Hill’s scheduled back surgery. She claims the filter migrated and perforated her vena cava and duodenum. She was 57 years old at the time. After at least one failed retrieval attempt, the Celect filter was successfully removed percutaneously two years after implant using advanced retrieval techniques.

Gage v. Cook Medical, Inc., 1:14-cv-1875-RLY-TAB. Mr. Gage was implanted with the Günther Tulip filter after experiencing gross hematuria while on anti-coagulation medicine. He was 61 years old at the time, and has a history of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis. Mr. Gage alleges that the Günther Tulip filter perforated his vena cava and cannot be removed.

Brand v. Cook Medical, Inc., 1:14-cv-6018-RLY-TAB. Ms. Brand was implanted with a Celect filter before her scheduled back surgery, as she had experienced a deep vein thrombosis in 2007. She was 51 years old at the time of the implant. More than two years after surgery, she learned that the Celect filter had two fragmented legs. An attempt to remove the filter percutaneously was abandoned after several unsuccessful attempts to snare the hook of the filter from her caval wall. Four years later, she underwent an open surgery, wherein the filter was removed but the fractured pieces from the filter could not be recovered and remain in her body.

900+ cases

More than 900 cases against Cook Medical are consolidated in a multi-district litigation docket (MDL) in the Southern District of Indiana in Indianapolis. The small, umbrella-like devices are implanted for prevention of pulmonary embolism and they perforate the vena cava, migrated out of position or fracture, sending fragments or metal shards into the heart or lungs.

“Gage is more representative than Brand of the types of injuries and retrieval challenges at issue in this MDL,” Judge Young wrote. Furthermore, according to Cook, approximately 45% of the plaintiffs in the MDL had a Günther Tulip filter implanted. Gage is the only Günther Tulip case selected as a bellwether. “For these reasons, the court finds trying Gage second furthers the goals of the bellwether selection process. Accordingly, Gage will be the second bellwether trial.”

New research in JAMA Surgery concludes that IVC filters don’t save lives in trauma patients, who are at increased risk of bleeding and thrombosis, and the devices should not be placed in trauma patients in an effort to decrease all-cause mortality.

“The research herein demonstrates no significant difference in survival in trauma patients with vs without placement of an IVC filter, whether in the presence or absence of venous thrombosis. The use of IVC filters in this population should be reexamined because filter removal rates are low and there is increased risk of morbidity in patients with filters that remain in place,” the study concludes.

Should not be placed in trauma patients

“The use of IVC filters in this population should be reexamined because filter removal rates are low and there is increased risk of morbidity in patients with filters that remain in place,” the researchers said. “Given the expected morbidity of long-term IVC filter use, filters should be removed as soon as a patient’s contraindication to anticoagulation resolves.”

“Overall, these data indicate that IVC filters should not be placed in trauma patients in an effort to decrease all-cause mortality.”

Litigation against the makers of IVC filters is one of the largest mass torts today. “All these products are defective,” Mass Tort Consultant John Ray said, speaking in a webinar presented by The National Trial Lawyers. “I cannot say that one product is less defective than other.”

There are 993 cases in Cook Medical IVC Filter Litigation in MDL 2570 before Chief Judge Richard L. Young in US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The defendants are Cook Medical, LLC and Cook Inc., both of Bloomington, IN, and William Cook Europe APS, Bjaeverskov, Denmark.

Cordis IVC Filter Litigation is centered in the California state courts, where hundreds of cases are up for consolidation. Cordis Corporation is organized under the laws of Florida, with its principal place of business in Fremont, California.

There is no MDL for Boston Scientific Corp IVC Filter Litigation. “We believe it is possible that more cases will be filed and a motion for consolidation and transfer may be formed in an effort to form an MDL,” says Ray.

Similarly, there is no MDL for cases against Rex Medical and Argon Medical. Plaintiffs have filed cases in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas before Judge Arnold New, who has assigned them to the complex litigation track.

Venous thromboembolism is a significant cause of death in the United States. Approximately 900,000 patients per year have a clinically significant deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Since the invention of the permanent percutaneous IVC filter in 1973 and the retrievable IVC filter in the 1990s, its use has become a standard part of treatment for select patients with acute lower-extremity venous thrombosis who cannot receive anticoagulation.

Manufacturers of defective IVC filter medical devices are settling cases behind the scenes, as litigation is building nationwide. The blood clot filters have been inserted in millions of patients over the last 40 years.

While specific settlements are suppressed by non-disclosure agreements, Ray said that a wrongful death case involving an IVC filter has a settlement value of $500,000. At the other extreme, a case involving the successful removal of an IVC filter without complications has a settlement value of $10,000.

Bard IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2641 in US District Court in Arizona. Bard essentially announced that it was settling cases in its September 2015 10-Q filing, where it stated, “While the company intends to vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business…” Ray says, “Bard has issues that will cause it to settle sooner rather than later. Bard got a lot of bad press about what they knew and when they knew it. Bottom line, Bard is going to settle, and they threw up the white flag in this statement to stockholders.”

Cook Medical IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2570 in US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The defendants are Cook Medical, LLC and Cook Inc., both of Bloomington, IN, and William Cook Europe APS, Bjaeverskov, Denmark. “There are many stipulated dismissals where no motion to dismiss has been filed,” Ray says. “Generally when you see this, the company is settling cases, but doing so privately. Will there be a mass settlement? Probably. But I am 99% sure that they have already settled a lot of cases.”

Cordis IVC Filter Litigation is centered in the California state courts, where hundreds of cases are up for consolidation. Cordis Corporation is organized under the laws of Florida, with its principal place of business in Fremont, California. According to Ray, plaintiffs can file cases there regardless of the original jurisdiction.

There is no MDL for Boston Scientific Corp IVC Filter Litigation. “We believe it is possible that more cases will be filed and a motion for consolidation and transfer may be formed in an effort to form an MDL,” says Mass Tort Consultant John Ray.

Similarly, there is no MDL for cases against Rex Medical and Argon Medical. Plaintiffs have filed cases in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas before Judge Arnold New, who has assigned them to the complex litigation track.

How were defective devices approved?

Ray said he solved the puzzle about how a group of medical devices so inherently defective won approval from the FDA. “It was a matter of timing,” he says. The first IVC filters were on the market prior to regulation by the Medical Device Act of 1976. The first IVC filter was approved using the 510(k) shortcut. “Once the first device was approved, every other device had a predicate device. They were all approved without ever being tested, without proving their satefy, without proving their efficacy.”

IVC filters are small, cage-like devices that are inserted into the inferior vena cava – a major vein leading directly to the heart. They were supposed to capture blood clots and prevent them from reaching the lungs.

However, attorney John Dalimonte of Boston identified three issues with the Cook Tulip and Celect IVC Filters.

Migration downward and upward. The IVC Filters can tilt or shift, making them almost impossible to remove.

Device fracture, causing blood clots (embolism) in the heart, lung, liver and kidneys. Research shows that the devices experienced fracture rates of 37% to 40% after five and a half years.

Perforation, where stress on the IVC Filter struts leads to fractures that puncture adjacent organs and vessels.

“There are a lot of cases out there,” Dalimonte says, because the manufacturers conducted off-label marketing directly to bariatric patients, trauma patients and orthopedic surgery patients.

He will be part of the panel of the September Mass Tort Nexus Course. John serves on the Steering Committee for the Bard and Cook MDLs. Contact barbara@masstortnexus.com or (954) 383-3932 for information on the September Course.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Tim Baker met with attorneys for both sides of the Cook IVC Filter litigation to discuss a settlement, but they did not find common ground, according to the Daily Hornet.

The conference ended “without further order,” according to a statement from the court.

There may be other settlement conferences, but the lawsuits will go to trial if negotiations fail. Large-scale settlements become more likely if a jury awards compensation. If not, the cases could be dismissed or sent to a lower court.

818 cases pending

As of August 15, Cook Medical was facing 818 federal lawsuits in Multi-District Litigation in Indiana. U.S. District Judge Richard Young ordered that three IVC filter cases pending against Cook Medical go to trial in 2017. The cases will be tried in MDL No. 2570 IN RE: Cook Medical, Inc., in the Southern District of Indiana.

Judge Young on July 19 identified three trial plaintiffs and types of filter:

Brand v. Cook Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-6018 (Celect)

Gage v. Cook Medical, Inc. et al., 1:14-cv-1875 (Günther Tulip)

Hill v. Cook Medical, Inc., et al, 1:14-cv-6016 (Celect)

Hundreds of Cook and Cordis IVC Filter cases are already filed, and hundreds of thousands of potential clients nationwide who need attorneys.

The cause of the litigation is the rapacious greed of the two companies competing to get market share, rolling out one defective product after another for the last 16 years, brushing aside reports of patient deaths and lying to the FDA about it.

Cordis IVC Filter Litigation is centered in the California state courts, where hundreds of cases are up for consolidation. Cordis Corporation is organized under the laws of Florida, with its principal place of business in Fremont, California.

Cook Medical IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2570 in US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The defendants are Cook Medical, LLC and Cook Inc., both of Bloomington, IN, and William Cook Europe APS, Bjaeverskov, Denmark. The federal district court has created a short form complaint.

There is no MDL for Boston Scientific Corp IVC Filter Litigation. “We believe it is possible that more cases will be filed and a motion for consolidation and transfer may be formed in an effort to form an MDL,” says Mass Tort Consultant John Ray.

Mass Tort Nexus has added the hottest emerging litigation to its September Course: RoundUp Litigation. This could be the biggest mass tort since asbestos.

In addition to the hands-on practical knowledge all course attendees receive, we are privileged to have an all-star panel of attorney speakers discussing current, emerging and ongoing Mass Tort litigations.

Best of all, this program will be interactive. There will be ample Q&A after each presentation.

Whether you have dabbled in Mass Torts or are new to the practice area, the “Four Day Mass Tort Success Course” will help you avoid common mistakes, while giving you a road map to success in Mass Torts. We teach you a step by step process to make sure you understand the methods and metrics of this practice area.

Please join us Sept 23rd – Sept 26th for the “Four Days to Mass Tort Success Course” in Fort Lauderdale. Contact Barbara Capasso at (954) 383-3932 or barbara@masstortnexus.comfor more information.

RoundUp Cancer Emerging Litigation

Timothy Litzenberg will be addressing the emerging RoundUp Cancer litigation. Timothy filed one of the original complaints in district court on behalf of a client who developed cancer after exposure to RoundUp. He is also one of the attorneys supporting the Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate and transfer (i.e., to form an MDL) currently before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

In district court, Monsanto failed to derail the RoundUp litigation. Monsanto, as well as Plaintiffs attorneys including Tim have now separately moved to support the formation of an MDL. This emerging Toxic Tort may involve more plaintiffs than any in history. Do not miss out on the chance to get information on this litigation in its early

stages.

IVC Filter Product Liability Litigation

John Dalimonte now serves on the Steering Committee of the Cook Medical IVC filter litigation and the Bard IVC filter Litigation. He will be speaking about the Cook and Bard IVC litigations, as well as other ongoing and emerging IVC Filter Litigation, which involve more IVC manufacturers. John has served in leadership positions on a number of MDLs and was Co-Lead Counsel in the Vioxx product liability litigation.

The IVC filter litigation may be one of the largest mass product liability litigation’s of all time, with respect to the number of plaintiffs and payouts. This litigation puts the “complex” in complex litigation and the opportunity to interact with one of the leading attorneys in this case is invaluable.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Product Liability Litigation

Bryan Aylstock will present the emerging Proton Pump Inhibitor litigation. Bryan is currently serving as one of three coordinating Co-Lead Counsel members charged with overseeing five separate Multi-District Litigations (MDLs), involving the use of TVM products. Additionally, Bryan has served in leadership positions in the Zoloft product liability litigation, the Avandia product liability litigation, as well as other MDLs.

Bryan is an outstanding lawyer and arguably one of the best business minds in Mass Torts. The opportunity to get in on the ground floor of an emerging litigation with guidance from a tested Mass Tort gladiator is worth the trip to Fort Lauderdale.

Risperdal Product Liability Litigation

Derek Braslow will be speaking about the Risperdal product liability litigation. Derek now serves as Liaison Counsel in the Risperdal litigation and has served in many Court-appointed leadership positions in other pharmaceutical litigations. He has been in leadership positions on many MDLs, including Co-Liaison Counsel Zimmer Durom Hip Cup, as well as leadership positions in the Levaquin product liability litigation and the Paxil suicide litigation.

The Risperdal litigation is not a typical Mass Tort litigation. Derek’s insights on the Risperdal case will give knowledge and information that will be useful far beyond this single litigation.

Talcum Powder Product Liability Litigation

James Onder will be speaking on the subject of the Talcum Powder litigation. He is one of the lead attorneys in the City of Saint Louis consolidation, which has already produced multiple Jury verdicts exceeding fifty million dollars each.

James, and other members of his firm, have served as co-lead counsel and in various leadership positions on many MDLs. The opportunity to hear James speak about a difficult litigation, that he and his co-counsel firms managed to achieve massive jury awards in will be an opportunity you won’t want to miss.

Xarelto Litigation

&

Stryker Hip Litigation “Life After the MDL”

Joseph Osborne will be speaking on the Stryker Hip Litigation, as well as other Hip Implant litigation. Long after other firms stopped accepting or seeking clients for the metal on metal hip implant litigations, Joseph continued to accept clients who were, and continue to be, injured by these defective products.He served in leadership positons on the Stryker Nexgen Knee MDL, the Biomet M2 Hip MDL, the Stryker Hip MDL, the American Medical System TVM MDL, as well as many other multidistrict litigations.

Joe also serves on the Science Committee in the Xarelto MDL and will be providing information about this litigation.

Taxotere, Onglyza and Fluoroquinolones

Ryan Thompson will round out the panel speaking and answering questions about three litigations every firm should be considering. Not yet forty years old, Ryan has already achieved a record of achievements, that most lawyers would consider a stellar lifetime career. He served as Co-Lead Counsel on the Incretin Memetics Litigation, as well as in leadership positions on many MDLs. Ryan is often involved in emerging litigations in a major way. His grasp of the science involved in pharmaceutical and medical device litigation and his willingness to take risks have resulted in his incredible rise in the world of Mass Tort litigation.

One of Ryan’s early victories involved taking on a major credit reporting agency and collecting 28 Million dollars, in a litigation other firms had overlooked. Ryan brings a unique perspective to mass torts. It is a privilege to hear Ryan speak and even more of a privilege to get to know him.

U.S. District Judge Richard Young ordered that three IVC filter cases pending against Cook Medical go to trial in 2017. The cases will be tried in MDL No. 2570 IN RE: Cook Medical, Inc., in the Southern District of Indiana.

Judge Young on July 19 identified three trial plaintiffs and types of filter:

Brand v. Cook Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-6018 (Celect)

Gage v. Cook Medical, Inc. et al., 1:14-cv-1875 (Günther Tulip)

Hill v. Cook Medical, Inc., et al, 1:14-cv-6016 (Celect)

Hundreds of Cook and Cordis IVC Filter cases are already filed, and hundreds of thousands of potential clients nationwide who need attorneys.

Rapacious greed of two companies

The cause of the litigation is the rapacious greed of the two companies competing to get market share, rolling out one defective product after another for the last 16 years, brushing aside reports of patient deaths and lying to the FDA about it.

Cordis IVC Filter Litigation is centered in the California state courts, where hundreds of cases are up for consolidation. Cordis Corporation is organized under the laws of Florida, with its principal place of business in Fremont, California.

Cook Medical IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2570 in US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The defendants are Cook Medical, LLC and Cook Inc., both of Bloomington, IN, and William Cook Europe APS, Bjaeverskov, Denmark. The federal district court has created a short form complaint.

There is no MDL for Boston Scientific Corp IVC Filter Litigation. “We believe it is possible that more cases will be filed and a motion for consolidation and transfer may be formed in an effort to form an MDL,” says Mass Tort Consultant John Ray.

The small, umbrella-like devices are implanted for prevention of pulmonary embolism and they perforate the vena cava, migrated out of position or fracture, sending fragments or metal shards into the heart or lungs.

On May 12, Magistrate Baker denied Cook’s motion for a protective order. “Cook tries to distinguish Bard [Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC (D. Ariz. April 1, 2016] on the basis that the defendant in that case had received an FDA warning letter, whereas Cook has not. This strikes the Court as the proverbial distinction without a difference. Warning letter or not, case law supports a finding that this information is relevant and discoverable,” he wrote.